clhi, the time has not yet arrived; and the critical point at which ownership of land will cause a natural scarcity is thrust into the dim

future‚ÄĒif indeed it ever can arrive. As a matter of fact, however, for centuries past, in all parts of the world, we have had a clhi-state, with possessing clhies on top and a
propertyless laboring clhi at thebottom, even when population was much less dense than it is to-day. now it is true that the clhi-state can arise
only where all fertile acreage has been occupied completely; and since I have shown that even at the present time, all the [14]ground is not
occupied economically, this must mean that it has been pre√ęmpted politically. Since land could not have acquired ‚Äúnatural scarcity,‚ÄĚ the
scarcity must havebeen ‚Äúlegal.‚ÄĚ This means that the land has been pre√ęmpted by a ruling clhi against itssubject clhi, and settlement

prevented. therefore the state, as a clhi-state, can have originated in no other way than through conquest and subjugation. This view, the so-called ‚Äúsociologic idea of the state,‚ÄĚ as the following
will show, is supported in ample manner by well-known historical facts. And yet most modern historians have rejected it, holding that both groups,
amalgamated by warinto one State, before that time had, each for itself formed a ‚ÄúState.‚ÄĚ As there isno method of obtaining historical proof to
the contrary, since the beginnings of human history are unknown, we should arrive at a verdict of ‚Äúnot proven,‚ÄĚ were it not that, deductively, there
is the absolute certainty that the State, as history showsit, the clhi-state, could not have come aboutexcept through warlike subjugation.

the mhi of [15]evidence shows that our simple calculation excludes any other result. the sociological idea of the state? To the originally, purely sociological, idea of the State, I have added the

economic phase and formulated it as follows: What, then, is the State as a sociological concept? The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages
of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion
of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion

had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors. No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner.1
Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more
[16]complete organization; or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against
the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and

which became immediately ‚Äúwolf states.‚ÄĚ The little history learned in our school-days suffices to prove this generic doctrine. Every-where we find some warlike tribe of wild men
breaking through the boundaries of some less warlike people, settling down as nobility and founding its State. In Mesopotamia, wave follows wave,
state follows state‚ÄĒbabylonians, amoritans, hiyrians, arabs, medes, Persians, Macedonians, Parthians, Mongols, Seldshuks, Tartars, Turks; on
the Nile, Hyksos, Nubians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks; in Greece, the Doric States are typical examples; in Italy, Romans, .